Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

20130701 TZHC Mwanza

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appellants, having instituted the appeal, are at liberty to withdraw it, and such withdrawal attracts costs to the respondent.

Court disposition

Appeal withdrawn with costs

Orders

  • Appeal withdrawn as prayed by the first Appellant with costs

02

Material facts

Parties

Josia Methusela

1st Appellant

S & C Ginning Co. Ltd

2nd Appellant

Maria Mwilago

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Land Case Appeal / Ruling on Withdrawal of Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The 1st Appellant's counsel prayed for abandonment or withdrawal of the appeal.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's inherent powers

    A party who instituted an appeal is at liberty to withdraw it.

  2. 02

    Court's discretion

    Withdrawal of an appeal attracts costs to the other party.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appellants, having instituted the appeal, are at liberty to withdraw it, and such withdrawal attracts costs to the respondent.

Court disposition

Appeal withdrawn with costs

  • Appeal withdrawn as prayed by the first Appellant with costs

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 1 July 2013

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 1 July 2013

20130701 TZHC Mwanza

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA' (LAND DIVISION)

AT MWANZA LAND CASE APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2009 (From the Decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Mwanza District at Mwanza in Land Case No. 17 of 2006) JOSIA METHUSELA ......................................... 1sr APPELLANT S &C GINNING CO. LTD .................................. 2ND APPELLANT

VERSUS MARIA MWILAGO ............................................ RESPONDENT

RULING B.R. MUTUNGI, J. Before me is a prayer by the 1st Appellant's _counsel for abandonment or withdrawal of the appeal filed of which I find as they were the ones who instituted the same are at liberty to decide what to do with their appeal. Since now that the first Appellant who instituted the appeal has decideq to abandon the same I have no reason but to _grant their prayer. , As to costs it is obvious the appeal has been filed since "" 2009J this will definitely attract costs. In view 'Of the foregoing 1 I proceed to withdra,w the appeal as prayed by the first Appellant with costs. ORDER: Appeal withdrawn with costs. B.R. MUTUNGI

JUDGE 1/7/2013 2 ( .

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.